The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-05-18
THE IRISH CRIMES BILL,
Failure of an Attempt to Secure Modification
of Important Clause

FaiIure of an Attempt to Secure Modification
of an Important Clause.
LONDON, May 1.-THE debate on the coercion
bill was resumed this evening in the Commons.
Sir William rnonHarcourt moved an amend
ment exempting from secret inquiry all proceed
ings relating to public meetings agraran
movements, including combinations to obtain
reductions of rent. He said if the government
were content to direct the inquiries authorized
under the bill to such ofenses as murder arson.
''moonlighting' and mutilation of cattle the bill
might pass. The bill would then deal with
actual crimes; would not be measure creating
offenses In it's present form the bill might ap-
ply to matters never before recognized in
eliminating. The House ought not to allow
measure TO pass for the purpose of repressing
crime which really had another OBJ
ject What was the governments inten.
tiona Did they propose to suppress combina
tions against landlordsl Was breach of contract
to be made criminal offenses Would govern
ment give Irish tenants the same assurance OF
protection is given laborers in England3
Would they make it clear that the tenants right
which was their industry. would be placed upon
the same footing with the rights of English
workmen in regard to their labor! If there was
a land trades-union in ireland, would the bill
suppress it. [Cheers. If SO, on what ground
did the government distinguish between Irish
trades unions and English trades -unionsa
lCneerS
Mr. Balfour Chief Secretary for Ireland, held
that the offenses embraced in the measure had
been sufficiently defined, and the amendment.
if adopted, would simply render the bill futile,
leaving out nearly all the agrarian offenses. The
comparison of trades unions with the Irish
conspiracy to pay rent was obviously absurd.
The law of conspiracy regarding wages had
distinct history from what was now occurring
in Ireland The bill dealt with conspiracy to de-
fraud landlords, with conspiracy to prevent free
exercise of private and public rights in matters
of trade, and other forms of boycottng. As to
the suggestion that the bill would be allowed to
progress If the government conceded the amend
ment. he could distinctly intimate that the gov
ern.nent would not yield to obstruction any
thing they refused to argument. Cheersi.
Mr. Dillon contended that unless the amend
ment was accepted the government would be
able TO imprison every body who might be polit-
icay obnoxious. Landlords who had not re-
ceived rents might swear out information of con-
spiracy. causing all sorts of persons to be
brought up for bogus inquiry. If they refused
to answer questions, such persons might be i'm
prisoned long the government chose.
Cries of Hear "..Hear"l.
Mr.. Gladstone said he regretted that the gov
ernment failed TO recognize :he justice of grant
ing the Irish tenant the same protection they
afforded the English workman. As to boycott
ing. the government must explain what was
meant by that rercn. Was intimidation included.
or only boycotting leading TO exclusive dealngs
When MIR. Balfour said the government refused